Buran energia launch ( Soviet Shuttle program )

[algaroon]

@chillaxer1993 Mr. fool, your ignorance is horrible. Your fake long exposed. U.S. has never been a leader in the space race. The first satellite, the first cosmonaut, the first docking of the first spacewalk, the first woman in space, the first satellite of the sun, preview pictures of the moon, Mars and Venus. The first space station. All that the Soviet Union. Stick your head in the shit, where did you say something and it vytschili. Ignoramus.

[redskins112995]

"I Can See Russia From My House" commin from the moon russian comrades

[kz4eva]

да мочить их надо америкотов! или куцинича тогда в президенты

он норм чел не то что ошмабы и всякие бюши)

[placydoplacek]

First of all shuttle program was mistake. Russians are smart and dropped that poor idea. Russians rules in the space. Hope that there will be no more mistakes like space shuttle anymore (instead of taking useful payload to orbit they took 75 tons of junk). The only and real hope for USA is super heavy lift system (such as Ares V (canceled) or Direct (based on space shuttle parts) and SpaceX. If those two fails - USA fails. Hail to Space Russia

[algaroon]

Looked at the comments and laugh. Pro-American idiots still believe that the Americans were on the moon ... Naive people.

[chillaxer1993]

@algaroon you're naive because you're too embarrased to face the fact that america was a leader in space technology. get your head out of your ass or kill yourself because you're too ignorant to live in this society. We landed on the moon several times. you're the kind of people who are so afraid of the truth that they make shit up because they're ignorant. Go die you fucking prick, maybe ill kill you to put u out of your misery

[MrButtcrap]

@chillaxer1993 Typical american idiot.

[adrastea99]

The russian shuttle was definitively better, but then again they could improve on american mistakes

[Plutoplatter]

?? Sergei, your pro-Soviet communist fantasies are entertaining. You claim that the Soviets announced the launch of Sputnik six months before it happened. Six months? Six months?? Six months??? How can one announce that something has happened if it hasn't yet happened, and expect sane people not to conclude you are psychotic?? Well, the Soviets were braggart blowhards, I'll give you that. Here's something they couldn't boast away: "Houston, Tranquillity Base here. The Eagle has landed."

[Plutoplatter]

Russian rockets are the most reliable? You mean like the N-1? The Proton? Russia's sea-launched military missiles adapted for scientific launches? Every one of these have had major failures. Even the good R-7 flubs up from time to time. Energia is too expensive to use. And secrecy! For decades, you paranoid diehard Soviets hid your space program from the outside world, announcing only succeses and ignoring failures. Your claim of Soviet/Russian rocketry superiority is without merit.

[SergeiPilipenko]

@Plutoplatter

About “secrecy”. Russia announced the launch of the 1st Sputnik a half of the year before the launch on October 4th, 1957. People has just to read newspapers from time to time. The Energia rocket is not expensive at all. But the problem is that there are no practical tasks for it. By the way, there is also no task for the Space Shuttle system. It is a nonsense to transport a little cosmonauts to the orbit in a ship about 100 tons.

[Plutoplatter]

Amazing! Even after decades of American dominance in manned space travel and interplanetary exploration, defiant Soviet space program supremicists still exist, even if only a couple dozen or so. You diehard commies still can be saved from your depression. Here's the magic mantra: "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." Still not enough? Then chant this winner: "We came in peace for all mankind."

[mikeplay007]

@Plutoplatter Mister stupidity,Americans never have been on the moon, it was all fake, are you still didn't awoke up from cold war propaganda? The "AMERICAN MOON LANDING" you are so proud off was just pathetice lie and propaganda bullshit. Videos were made in Nevada desert. GOOGLE IT,  Fake moon landing.

[Plutoplatter]

@mikeplay007 Oh my, you are another neurotic who can't handle the reality that we Americans conducted six successful manned landings on the Moon. Those Google sites that support your fevered fantasies? Delusional like you. You idiots run in packs and read only idiot publications and websites. You poor thing. Let me offer some advice: Move out of your mother's house. Get a job. And take your antipsychotic medications each and every day. Then come back sometime and let us know how you're doing.

[syeager9]

@Plutoplatter Why Russia lost the moon race? Because they didn't have a rocket comparable to Saturn. US spent years for completely new Oxygen/Hydrogen engines, had many disasters, but made it eventually. While in Russia they just tried to add more engines to the same 1960 design.

Energia was the first Russian achievement using completely new approach. But then USSR collapsed and now it's just a history.

Remains of Buran now covered by the ruins of the building where it was once stored.

[harris3693]

@Plutoplatter Fuck u pluto, did a USSR SATAN missile go up ur-anus? :) BTW, it was proven that if the USSR was to survive past 1991, the USA would have collasped (look at all the mergers of US aerospace companies that happened during the 80's)

[Plutoplatter]

@harris3693 Harris, can't handle America's superiority, can you? No need to feel bad. Many can't, just like you. It is your paranoid jealousy of America's success that helps keep so many psychiatrists employed. Please, take your meds each and every day and on time, keep seeing your shrink about your anger problem, and come back every so often to let us know how you are progressing.

[harris3693]

@Plutoplatter If they had superiority, then why are they are using Soviet rockets to launch satellites and not american ones, btw, u really need to get the american bullshit outta ya as many around the world hate your false ignorance and arrogance.

[Plutoplatter]

@harris3693 Actually, nobody is using Russian rockets to launch commercial satellites. Too many failures. SeaLaunch, now bankrupt, doesn't count, either, because the Zenit rockets it used are Ukranian made. The Atlas V does use a Russian engine in its first stage, and that engine is pretty good. But, that's about it for the Russian commercial launching business. So Harris, I'd like to further help you come to reality, but excuse me, the Apollo Moon Landings are on TV right now.

[ZeEzhik]

@Plutoplatter Nobody used? LOL! Starts from Baikonur for a year, twice exceed starts from Cape Canaveral, and even on 10 starts in a year there is from the cosmodrome Plesetsk... What then Russian start, how you think?)))... And why at the new French cosmodrome, in addition to the European rockets, have constructed a platform for launch of the Soyuz, and not of any yankees shit?

[tziuriky86]

@Plutoplatter

inform yourself before talking. I am not Russian and I loved US missions but it's true that the Soviets first and the Russians after have lead the rockets and space exploration. First satellite in orbit, first man in orbit, first woman in orbit, first moon robots with sample returns, first venus probes, first mars probes, first mars moon probes, most of the ESA and NASA missions are today accomplished by using russian rockets or western rockets based on russian engines.

[tziuriky86]

@Plutoplatter

even some new missions, as some european mars missions, nowadays, are based on the old Mars missions of the soviet (then russian) mars program. Oh, I forgot, the first space station was russian as well, but yes, the U.S. have done 2 things that are something greater: the manned landing on the moon and the voyager probe which is out of our solar system but still sending information, that's great stuff mate, but don't criticize the great russian achivements please :) Peace&Love

[harris3693]

@Plutoplatter but, if u read your history, the Zenit rocket was developed when Ukraine was the USSR!!

[charger19691]

I appreciate all your views. Maybe a time will come when USA and Russia will build a new shuttle as a joint venture. Maybe we can learn from each other. Our space program has some great accomplishments but horrible tragedys as well. Maybe someday in a better world we can achieve more greatness.

[arsenal553]

that would be beautiful

[harris3693]

@charger19691 but the Russians still have a grudge against the USA for the mafia plague they spread after the collaspe of the USSR, so unless the USSR comes back, there is little chance that they will ever trully help those american NASA pigs!

[charger19691]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see in this clip that this huge fire show had trouble getting this monstrocity off the ground. Terribly sluggish for a system that was supposed to be "so powerful". That fire show could of been reduced if the rockets would of ran more efficiently and developed more thrust. This program was clearly in it's infancy stages. No Cosmonaut in his right mind would of test flown that system.

[ZaneKaminski]

Not true.

4 of the 8 engines on there are RD-171 engines. They are the world's most powerful rocket engines, and a smaller derivative is used today on American Atlas V rockets.

Furthermore, to compare to the Saturn V, the Energia produced roughly the same (actually slightly more) liftoff thrust, but weighed more than 1 million pounds less.

So in other words, the Energia accelerates faster than our "flagship" space race launcher, the Saturn V.

[basewell]

The most powerful rocket engine in the world is the Shuttle SRB, and now the 5 segment Ares first stage is even more. well over 3 million lbs. Oh you're talking liquid? I still like the F1, 1.5 million back in 1965. It took them reds a while to catch up there eh?

[ZaneKaminski]

You're still wrong. The RD-171 is the most powerful liquid fueled rocket engine in the world. While it has 4 combustion chambers (nozzles), it acts as one unit, therefore making it one engine.

And anyway, the RD-170 series is considerable more efficient than the F-1.

[rjholling]

As opposed to riding on a system with gargantuan solid rocket boosters strapped to it like the STS? Personally, I would feel much safer riding on this Rusky rocket than our dear 'Merican Space Shuttle!

[rjholling]

also the huge 'fireball' is because the boosters are kerosene/LOX, much like the first stage of the Saturn V. which was another much safer liquid fuel design than the Space Shuttle.

[mishgun420]

u think someone asked for the cosmonauts opinion??

[SergeiPilipenko]

N1 really had a payload less than Saturn-5 because the N1 was created biblical not for manned Moon flights at all, but rather for launching Mars satellites. Therefore two (not one) N1 rockets had to launch 6 or more cosmonauts to the Moon for one month in 1974. So the payload was not critical. I think we have two reasons of cancelling N1 program: no real race (Russia started their Moon program 4-5 years later than USA) and biblical envy and revengefulness of Glushko.

[SergeiPilipenko]

As opposed to the USA engine stand tests, which also had a lot of failures, the Russians conducted flying trials because they are cheaper, quicker and more reliable. In all 4 trials were used not NK-33, but NK-15 engines. And there is no proof that any failure was caused by an NK-15 engine. The 1st failure was definitely caused by the control system, for example. The 1st Kuznetsov NK-33 engines were installed in 1974 when the N1 program was canceled by Glushko — Kuznetsovs competitor.

[Plutoplatter]

@SergeiPilipenko American engines had failures on the test stand? Well...yeah! That why they're called test stands! Geting one's rocket systems perfected with careful, well-planned static testing is smart, prudent, and self-evident. This, as opposed to the Soviets, desperate to beat America to the Moon, throwing together 30 engines into the first stage of the untested N-1 and launching it without any testing. Boom! Four straight times. End of Soviet space program. Some strategy!

[SergeiPilipenko]

@Plutoplatter

You should be informed that there are stand tests and flying tests. The Russians aircraft and rocket designers always preferred flying tests because flying tests save time, are cheaper and much more trustworthy than stand tests. The stand tests may be only auxiliary additions to the flying tests. That is why the Russian rockets are the most reliable and efficient, and the most inefficient and dangerous Space Shuttles could not perform their fly tests once and for all.

[Zoomer30]

Failure is pretty much guaranteed when your engines suck so much you have to put 30 of them in a stage just to get off the ground.

[ZaneKaminski]

1. That was the N1, not the Energia.

2. This launch was completely successful.

3. Oftentimes, putting a lot of engines together like that can be successful. When one of them fails, the rest can take over with little difference in performance. And anyway, if it were to have worked right, the N1 would have had a gross liftoff thrust about 40% higher than the Saturn V, which weighed about the same (both were in the 3,000,000 kg range)

[Plutoplatter]

Sergei, why keep posting your baloney? All the American rocket boosters that you poo-pooed were great successes. As for those Soviet NK-series engines that you praise, they are all obsolete. No one is flying them today, not even Russia. Besides, our RS-68 engine is superior to all of them, and it is not even as efficient as the Space Shuttle Main Engine. And yes, our Atlas uses the RD-180, but it's fun to point out that the RD-180 is built by Ukraine, not Russia. America's Space Program rocks!

[SergeiPilipenko]

Yes, the American Atlas and Titan rockets had much more launch failures than the N1. And therefore the Titan became a scrap metal long ago, and the Atlas leans on the RD-180 now. As regards NK-33, NK-43, NK-39 and NK-31, they simply wait for their rockets because Russia has more different rocket engines than it needs at the moment, although different types of rockets are also in plenty in Russia.

[ZaneKaminski]

2. Lack of funds- An underfunded program meant the lack of funds for tests of individual stages. The only way to test the N1 would be a flight test.

3. The N1/L3 was started after Apollo- America's goal of landing on the moon was declared in 1961. Because of early American failures in space, the Russians did not believe we would be successful. However, when we started "getting better" at spaceflight, Soviet leadership wanted to start the N1 project, 3 years after we started Apollo.

[ZaneKaminski]

Now, so the reason that I'd consider American heavy lift systems to be superior is as follows:

The N1 might have eventually have a successful flight. However, it would have never been truly reliable, like, say, the Delta II.

This is because modifications made by Korolev to increase payload decreased the reliability of the booster.

[ZaneKaminski]

Furthermore, with respect to the

NK-33 engines, the Chinese YF-100 LOX/RP1 engines actually best the NK-33 engine in terms of specific impulse. You also say that the NK-33 is reliable, and I disagree. All four of the N1's launch failures were caused by these engines.

[SergeiPilipenko]

All 4 launch failures of N1 prove nothing. The American Atlas or Titan rockets had dozens of launch failures before first success. The Kuznetsov NK-33 and NK-43 engines are still the unsurpassed champions in specific thrust, economy and reliability. Only the Glushko RD-170 and RD-180 engines can compete with them in the world market.

[Plutoplatter]

Uh, Sergio, that is untrue about our American Atlas and Titan rockets. They had early failures, but they also had successful launches, too. It was the successes that told their designers that they were on the right track, which led to more and more improvements to produce the great rockets that they became. That is how rockets should be made. And your argument that the NK-33 and NK-43 are the best engines ever is ridiculous, proof of which is that nobody flies them, not even the Russians.

[ZaneKaminski]

N1 failed for a few key reasons:

1. Lack of a competent person in charge- N1 was conceived by Korolev. However, he realized that once he had given the idea to the USSR, that he had miscalculated the payload of the launch vehicle. He, however, could not tell anyone this, as that would result in his rival Cholemi's project being accepted.

On top of that, Korolev died before the first test flight of the N1, and Mishin, appointed to replace him, was completely unable to design a launch vehicle.

[Plutoplatter]

Plutoplatter is right. The RD-170 is a four rocket engines. They are clustered together onto the same base and share a single fuel pump, but everything else about the RD-170 features shows it is a four-engine system. Individually, none of the four engiens is anywhere near the most powerful liquid-fuel engines in existence.

[SergeiPilipenko]

Plutoplatter is wrong. The RD-170 is a single rocket engine and it is the most powerful. The number of nozzles in a rocket engine is similar to the number of cylinders (drums) in an internal-combustion engine.

[codaecraeix]

Calling all the population of earth "Lets bring back the Buran Space Shuttle program"

[momaster100]

it looks like it blu up nasa is better

[Arkgamer]

Pity the program never went anywhere, that was pretty awesome.

[mo129932]

it looks like it caught on fire

[Plutoplatter]

Oh my, that is splitting hairs. Let's look at the differences between the RD-170 and the F-1 engines. The RD-170 is comprised of four separate combustion chambers and four nozzles. That makes it more of a cluster of engines rather than a single engine. So, in the conventional sense, the F-1 engine with its single combustion chamber and nozzle, is the de facto most powerful rocket engine ever built and flown.

[jpoppish]

I thought it exploded at first.

[Plutoplatter]

Good news for all you blustery Buran buffs: I am establishing a free counseling service to help you deal with your sad, delusional neurosis. It's a Ten Step Program. The first step is acceptance of the cosmic truth: our American Space Shuttle was and is superior. Now, repeat after me: "The Space Shuttle Rocks! The Space Shuttle Rocks! The Space Shuttle Rocks!" Good! Stay tuned for Step Number Two, coming soon. In no time, you'll be free of your Buran addiction, and you will be happy once more.

[flemwad]

The Space Shuttle sometimes explodes going up, and sometimes disintegrates coming down. Apart from that it is good.

[Plutoplatter]

Oh my, that was witty, Flemwad. Yes, our Space Shuttle did have one launch accident and one re-entry accident, both of which were tragic. I suppose Buran could be said to be better because it never has had an accident, or that is what the secretive Soviets would have had us believe. Now let's see....how many times did Buran fly an operational mission up or down? Hmm..add the right-hand column and carry the ones...here's the answer: zero. Our Shuttle? 125 flights so far, and still going strong.

[flemwad]

Thank you for acknowledging my wittiness. I have to give you advice though - starting comment with 'Oh my' makes you sound like a right twat. And I couldn't give a shit about the Buran. The space shuttle didn't even go to the moon for a jolly. What a waste of time, money and lives.

[Plutoplatter]

Thanks, Dimwad, I don't need your advice. Here's why: you let yourself get upset here in YouTube. You must be a true short-tempered dogmatic pain in the ass in the real world. So, thanks, but no thanks.

[flemwad]

Blah blah blah pot kettle black

[Plutoplatter]

I feel bad for you Buran neurotics. Even though it's a hunk of junk, perhaps you would feel better if it made it up into space at least one time that we can truly confirm. So I am going to take up a collection to buy a rope for our Great Space Shuttle to tow Buran into orbit. Any contributions will be welcome; no amount will be too small.

[flemwad]

Great space shuttle...kaboom

[Plutoplatter]

Buran...kaput.

[flemwad]

Couldnt care less, I had never even heard of the buran till I saw this video. More people died on the shuttle than the Buran, I at least know that :D

[Plutoplatter]

Well, then, you are a run-of-the-mill Internet troll. But I mean that only a nice way.

[flemwad]

I've said it before...pot kettle black...If you think you are getting the last word in, you had better outlive me

[Silmacar]

You're right: It rocks so much that it goes kaboom.

[Plutoplatter]

Where did you learn that word, Silmacar? You seem to like "kaboom". Wait! I know. You learned it from secret Soviet files that described their four titanic N-1 moon rocket explosions. And likely, too, from those same files that recount the disastrous detonation of their 1960 Nedelin rocket. You know, the launchpad disaster that killed 200 Soviet scientists, engineers, and dignitaries, including Strategic Rocket Forces Marshal Mitrofan Nedelin. Oops! It's not nice to blow up your boss.

[kalaw12]

For those who think that Buran was complete rip off of the American space shuttle

Look on youtube for "Burja Russian Aviation" . This project was 25 years before ANY line for the space shuttle was even on a drawing board. Does this Burja reminds you something ??? Just take a look for yourself.

[Olympic94]

russain crap

[bombarderoazul]

That's why americans buy RD-180 rocket engines from russia for their Atlas series rockets. he he he!

[blecha74]

@bombarderoazul Yes, but Russi have no money - bad economy and crazy mind after comunistic era. I was 1 times in Russia a no more.

[bombarderoazul]

The RD-170 engines used on Energia actually produce more thrust and are more powerful than the F-1 used on the Saturn V moon rocket.

[Plutoplatter]

Bombarder, your claim that the RD-170 is more powerful is completely false. Our American F-1 remains the most powerful rocket engine ever built. And it was 100% successful in all of its uses. Give it up! Our great American launch systems and spacecraft beat the pants off anything you frustrated communists ever built.

[bombarderoazul]

I think you are fight, Energya produced more thrust at liftoff than Saturn V but it wasn't more powerful, it's still considered a powerful rocket capable of placing 100 tons into LEO. I am not a communist and I am not russian either, but they have made some truly remarkable spacecraft, do the americans have anything that comes close to a soyuz in reliabily and low cost?

[Silmacar]

The "great American launch systems and spacecrafts" have claimed the life of fourteen astronauts during flight so far. Yes, the Apollo program and the STS have been great engineering feats, still the Russian program is safer and more reliable.

[Plutoplatter]

And your point is that the great wondrous Soviet Space Program is safer, and some proof is that no has died in the Buran? What ridiculous sophistry! The secretive Soviets lost cosmonauts, too, and worse, tried to cover several of the losses up. And let's play out your 'Buran is safer' claim: if our Space Shuttle had never flown a single manned mission like your beloved Buran never did, why, wonder of wonders, our Space Shuttle would have been as 'safe' as your Buran.

[Silmacar]

I think you totally missed the point. The Soviet-Russian space program, AS A WHOLE (not just the Buran!), has proven safer and more reliable, up to the state of our knowledge - that is, even if we assume that the Russians lost more cosmonauts than those we know of (they didn't cover up the death of Komarov after all), I don't think that the US were quite less secretive than the Soviets, at least in the early phase of Cold War. So let's keep to ascertained facts.

[Plutoplatter]

Silmacar, your sophistry fails to prove your safety claim. Moreover, your use of "As a whole.." is condescending, as if brilliant you can see 'the big picture' whereas others cannot. Here's the real big picture: 1) Both programs have had accidents and fatalities, but our American program has flown far more often. 2) Our program is run in the open; the Soviets were secret. And 3), our program achieves greater goals and technology. Verdict: Our space program is the safety & science gold standard.

[Silmacar]

Maybe my "sophistry" fails. But data record stands. And data say: IN flight: 4 dead cosmonauts vs 14 dead astronauts. DURING tests: 0 dead cosmonauts vs 3 dead astronauts.

Greater goals achieved by NASA: Moon landing. Greater goals achieved by Soviet program: 1st working space station (Salyut), long-term space station (Mir). So, definitely US program isn't the gold standard.

[Plutoplatter]

Correction on those Soviet 'goals', Silma. The first productive space station clearly was our SkyLab. The first Salyut, being hardly more than a stripped-out Soyuz, was hardly anything more than a docking target. And the second Salyut failed almost immediately and was abandoned without a single crew visiting it. By then, SkyLab was in operation, conducting real science with its onboard telescopes, metallurgical studies' furnace, and its biological and pharmaceutical experiments. So SjyLab wins.

[downix]

Technically, he is right. The RD-170 has a thrust capacity of 1,773,000 lbf vs the F-1s 1,553,200 lbf. The key is that the F-1 remains the most powerful "single nozzle" rocket engine ever launched into space). The RD-170, by comparison, is a multi-nozzle design.

[Plutoplatter]

False, Bonbardier. The RD-170 actually is FOUR separate engines, that are served by a single fuel pump. The mighty F-1 engines in the awesome Saturn V remain the most powerful rocket engines in the world.

[sakoshooter48]

Correct you are, and as a follow on to the F-1, the even larger and more powerful M-1 was being built. I have one of those sitting outside of my office!!!!

[ZaneKaminski]

Oh, so you work at P&W Rocketdyne, right?

[sakoshooter48]

No zane, I work for a company here in the United States that has one of the worlds finest aviation museums you will ever visit. We have a full up F-1 engine on display, along with a test article M-1. Any other snyde comments you care to interject?

[riipper666]

Yes, so it seems. Well, I hope the Angara will be succesful with RD-190 engines :)

[riipper666]

RD-170 is a powerfull engine but not as powerfull as the SRB. 7 MN thrust for RD-170 and 11 MN for SRB. But anyway its the best liquid engine there. Its also widely used as someone mentined the Zenit rocket. The RD-171 and RD-180 are just different models of the same basic engine (RD-180 has only two nozzles) so its fair to say that the original RD-170 design is still widely used

[gadinaaa]

Russians also have plans to use RD-190 (single nozzle modification of RD-170) in next-gen modular launcher Angara that will cover a range of payloads from 2 to 24.5 tonnes to LEO.

[riipper666]

Yes, true. It's nice to see that the legacy of RD-170 still lives on eventhought the energia and buran were scrapped :) I think the energia's LOX/H2 engine was also quite good and quite comparable with SSME but its unfortunate that there has been no use for it.

[gadinaaa]

Unfortunately, Russia seems to have lost its engineering school of heavy H2 engines. That one was indeed comparable to the SSME even though it didn't allow so many use cycles.

[Irishguy20008]

I was drawing on comparison between the Energia vs the USA shuttle.Energia is a far superior launch vehicle moving forward into the future.Energia can launch 140 tonne vs 25 tonne with the USA shuttle.

[justiakas]

shuttle is much older, therefore inferior. energia is an upgrade based on shuttle concept.

[ZeEzhik]

External similarity of "Buran("Snow-storm")" and "Shuttle" speaks not copying of a design from the American shuttle, and similarity of the technical requirements shown to devices. That is the similar form is dictated by similar physical activities on devices

[justiakas]

i didn't say it was a direct copy. the concept of shuttle was used, not some "stolen blueprints" or smthg. like that.

[Irishguy20008]

No I am drawing comparisons on Energia vs the USA space shuttle. Energia/Buran complex is a far better launch system than the USA shuttle.

[Irishguy20008]

The Rd170 was not a practical device are you crazy. Macdonald Douglas bought 80 of them 10 years ago for launching satellites. It is the first closed loop cycle engine ever developed achieving the same impulse response as solid rockets.

[Irishguy20008]

The RD170 had so many design feature which made her revolutionary in design.All modern rocket theory and engines are now being modeled on eh RD170 design.

[Irishguy20008]

Energia still remains to this day the heaviest launcher in the world capable of carrying 140 tonnes to LEO. It can be further modified to carry 240 tonnes. So yes the RD170 is the number one engine ever created and is being now copied int he USA.

[Irishguy20008]

Energia can land in any weather conditions.

[Irishguy20008]

The liquid engine is far safer than a solid rocket engine and far more versatile.The solid rocket engine had a far better performance over the liquid engine until the Soviet RD170 came along which was the first closed cycle engine.

[SergeiPilipenko]

Not the RD-170 was the first closed cycle engine, but NK-33 for N1 35 years ago. Exactly those old super reliable NK-33 engines for N1 rockets are successfully purchased by the US now.

[Plutoplatter]

Sergei, we've been over this particular story before. The remaining 270 NK-33 engines from the spectacularly-failed Soviet N-1 Moon rocket program were indeed purchased by an American consortium for potential use. The sale was made, what, 20 years ago, after the Soviet Union collapsed. Since then, newer and better rocket engine designs have emerged, particularly the economical RS-68, that have rendered those NK-33s effectively obsolete. That is why they might show up in a yard sale someday soon.

[Irishguy20008]

The reason the USA shuttle went with solid booster is for greater performance over their liquid engines.The RD170 Soviet engine had the same power as those solid rocket engines but could be shut off throttled and turned off.

[hubergeek]

Why do Russians preffer liquid instead of solid rockets?

[cezarmadness]

Because SRB is whery hard to control.You simply

push start buton and prey .You can not stop

chemical reaction and control trust.

In Energia rocket engins may in every moment

change trust and stop .

[Plutoplatter]

Good point. The Soviets never developed a stable solid fuel, either, one that was weather resistant (solid fuel can crack in changing temperature and humidity conditions, creating an runaway explosive result upon ignition), and powerful. Current-day solid-fuel technology Russia is no better.

[Irishguy20008]

They developed the RD170 which was the first closed cycle rocket engine giving far superior performance when compared to any other rocket engine. So much so that Macdonald Douglas bought 80 of them from Energia 10 years ago.

[Plutoplatter]

...which is why American rockets are flying those RD-170 engines left and right, correct? Look, not a single one of those old 80 Soviet engines has flown on any nation's rockets other than the old defunct Soviet Union way back decades ago. The RD-180 variant does perform well for Atlas V, and the RD-171 variant serves on the Zenit rockets that SeaLaunch uses...but that's about it. The RD-170 engine is hardly the greatest engine ever. Proof? Nobody flies them now, not even MDD/Boeing.

[Irishguy20008]

The Rd170 is the first closed cycle engine ever created giving the same thrust as the USA solid fuel boosters. The USA tried the closed cycle engine but ran into trouble and canceled it. Instead they had to use solid fuel booster which are far more dangerous and uncontrollable.

[Plutoplatter]

The Soviets developed the RD-170 because they never could perfect solid-fuel rocketry. As a result, the RD-170 was a very expensive substitute, so costly that no nation uses them. Even the Soviets stopped making them. Hey, it's okay to be romantically enamored with a particular cool-sounding rocket technology like you are with Soviet RD-170 engines. I for one love the Cosmostrator rocket depicted in 'First Spacehip on Venus'. But the RD-170, like the Cosmostrator, was not a practical device.

[Irishguy20008]

The USA concentrated on solid rocket boosters as they tried closed cycle liquid engines which were not a success. They were considering buying some RD170 engines to replace the solid engines on their shuttles.

[Plutoplatter]

That is a crock! NASA never serioiusly thought of using the RD-170 in the Space Shuttle boosters. The RD-170 could not and still can not match the power, performance, and economy of the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). Your enamoration with the closed-cycle 'beauty' of the RD-170 is cool. But NASA never was so enamored, and never, ever seriously thought about using the RD-170 in place of the SRBs. Good thing. The SRBs proved to be excellent performers once the O-ring flaw was fixed.

[Irishguy20008]

Incorrect the Rd170 on Energia matches the USA space shuttle for lift capacity. However Energia can carry a payload instead of the Buran orbiter allowing Energia to deploy 140 metric to LEO

[Plutoplatter]

That's silly. Eariler today, you were drawing an engine-for-engine comparison between the RD-170 and the SRB. Now you're inanely arguing that more than one RD-170 could outlift a single SRB, so the RD-170 must be better! Dear friend, ask yourself: why hasn't any nation on Earth, including Russia revived Energia and/or its RD-170 engines? Perhaps you could go to the UN and plead your case for the RD-170. Good luck.

[monkeyman1140]

The Shuttle SRB's were a shortcut employed to cut costs at the expense of astronaut safety. As we found out later. O-ring burn throughs turned out to be a common occurrence, and its surprising we only had one launch explosion.

[ukrainesuperpower87]

"Current-day solid-fuel technology Russia is no better. "

Hmmmm you wrong. Modern Russian ICBMs and SLBMs are using solid fuel and works OK.

[monkeyman1140]

Because nobody in their right mind would ever strap a human being to a solid rocket booster. The USA found out the problems of SRBs with the Challenger disaster in 1986. Its amazing more astronauts haven't died from SRB joint failures, there were so many.

[Plutoplatter]

Actually, Monkeyman, the safety record of SRBs is at least as good as liquid-fueled rockets. Yes, the Challenger accident was terrible, but that led to a safer, better SRB design and weather rules for launches. The SRBs in the Shuttle program have flown without incident since then, and that's nearly a hundred launches since Challenger now.

[OkurkaBinLadin]

2 Plutoplatter: Monkeyman is right buddy. From 16 dead astronauts - 13 were American.

It´s simply inherently flawed design. Solid fuel boosters should NEVER EVER be manned.

[monkeyman1140]

The SRB had to undergo a massive redesign. Not only were the o-rings increased in number, but the joints were radically changed because of problems of rotation along the joints. Its a shame that we had to lose an entire crew because of our hurry to beat the soviets. Everybody knows the shuttle's true purpose was not for space travel, but to loft super-heavy spy satellites. Our keyhole satellites are the size of the Hubble space telescope, and we had no way of lofting them without a shuttle

[TalksWithDirt]

The US used solids to keep the factories going for the US ICBM program. When Buran/Energia were being designed the USSR had only one or two operational solid ICBM, just about all their other ICBM's and IRBM's were liquids. The other reason is performance. You can grow the performance of a liquid system far more than you can a system based on solids. The Soviets/Russians avoided a lot of the inherent problems in the US STS by waiting 5 years to see how our system fleshed out.

[000darkstar000]

OMG!OMG!OMG!THAT WAS F##K'N AWSUM!!!THAT WAS

MASSIVE!thnx 4this cool vid!VIVA!Russia!

[akinkhoo]

it has 20 nozzle; 4 booster engine with 4 nozzle each burning jet fuel and 4 main engine burning hydrogen.

of course it is gonna look explosive :D

[craymcdaniel]

i looks like it went into slipspace

[Orionsaint]

For a sec it looks like it explodes on the launchpad. I remember seeing this shuttle launch when I beat Tetris on Gameboy.

[jknox71]

was it the first gameboy if it was that game is awesome still play it sometimes